The government may not be compelled to provide sexually explicit materials for sale on DoD installations, but shouldn't they examine said materials for explicitness on an equal basis?

While Playboy and Celebrity Skin are allowed (appealing primarily to men), Cosmopolitan is the only publication on the list that appeals primarily to women. Cosmo is a lot of things, but it's not quite at Playboy's level. Playboy is equally explicit as Playgirl. (Except, you know, Playboy has those great articles...)

Either both should be on the list or off the list. Nudity is neither more or less explicit because it portrays a person of a certain gender. Biological differences in arousal should not lead to the legal conclusion that photographs of males are hard-core pornography while those of women are not. Classifying the two differently merely reflects male biases in the law, allowing men easier access to pornographic portrayals of women.

Frankly, I think the DoD's motivation in placing Playgirl on the banned list reflects a different motivation: a brief search reveals Playgirl's main audience is gay men. Unfortunately, the case involved a facial challenge to the statute on the equal protection claim (which included both gender- and race-based discrimination, p. 13893). It's unclear if the parties argued intent to discriminate against women because of gay men's interest in the magazine. It would be interesting to see what a court would do with it.

I can't believe I just spent that much time talking about porn.